Re: [secdir] proxies and forwarding of credentials, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 31 October 2013 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720EC11E8271 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.815
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.815 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.216, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hDcVTyyqn4k4 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D910211E8274 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.72] (unknown [118.209.167.85]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C3FCF22E1FA; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:59:12 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <5272B71B.1070607@bbn.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:59:07 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <679A359D-AB27-4DA7-AAD0-59290DA1DF23@mnot.net>
References: <52700DE4.8020208@bbn.com> <52725E8E.50106@greenbytes.de> <5272B71B.1070607@bbn.com>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
Cc: secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@pobox.com>, "Mankin, Allison" <amankin@verisign.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Subject: Re: [secdir] proxies and forwarding of credentials, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:59:41 -0000

It entirely depends upon the way that they’re cooperating… sometimes you’d want to forward them, sometimes not. If we were defining a proxy authentication cooperation protocol here, I could understand a MUST here, but as we’re not, I don’t think we want to constrain how one might operate…

Cheers,


On 1 Nov 2013, at 7:01 am, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>; wrote:

> Julian,
> 
> I alos don't have personal experience with the proxy situation. I was just commenting on
> what appeared to be a logical inconsistency in the text.
> 
> I defer to others, who have such experience, on this detail.
> 
> Steve
>> On 2013-10-29 20:35, Stephen Kent wrote:
>>> ...
>>> In Section 4.3, the text says:
>>> 
>>> A proxy MAY relay
>>> 
>>> the credentials from the client request to the next proxy if that is
>>> 
>>> the mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively authenticate a given
>>> 
>>> request.
>>> 
>>> If, as stated here, a set of proxies cooperatively authenticate a
>>> request, then isn’t this a MUST vs. a MAY?
>>> ...
>> 
>> Maybe. I have no experience with proxy authentication, and this piece of text was copied from <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.34>;.
>> 
>> Perhaps this is a case where we should drop the RFC2119 keywords and just make a statement such as:
>> 
>> "A proxy can relay the credentials from the client request to the next proxy if that is the mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively authenticate a given request."
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> Best regards, Julian
>> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/